What's wrong with the Ivy Schools nowadays!?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phrossack said:
Racist jokes and stereotypes are not considered socially acceptable anymore, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

No you see, jokes and stereotypes aren't the problem. Simply stop calling people "" or "n!gg!r" solves nothing. It's illusory progress, if that.

It is more difficult for minorities to get jobs, and they get stopped by police more often and face harsher treatment in the judicial system. [...] Blacks tend to get longer prison sentences for the same crimes, and police are more likely to suspect and abuse them. And these things are wrong, and should be stopped.
Click to expand...

See, I don't get how you can hold these positions, while at the same time deny the fact that the majority (ie white people) is collectively bad at dealing with racism.

You can't solve problems unless you get to the root cause, and the root cause in this case is, partially at least, the inefficient response of the dominant group. Ie white Americans.
 
It's weird, because the only accusations of racism that have accurately occurred in this thread was a non-white person against a non-white person. And white people still come in and make it all about us.

Maybe this is why nobody likes us?
 
Phrossack wasn't disputing that the system is inherently prejudiced against non-white people. He was saying that it's wrong to make blanket statements about white people. That's not the same thing. Because whilst those who operate the system may be overwhelmingly white, not all white people are responsible for it.
 
Masada said:
Why is that white people when challenged about the inherent injustice of the system towards blacks always think it's really just an attempt to paint them as a racist?

EDIT: Nobodies called you a racist. We just think your view of race relations in the United States is hopelessly optimistic. It's a thing common to a lot of white people, I guess you dudes just lack experience being discriminated against on the basis of one's skin color.

I also applaud TF and Crezth's principled stand with TK and I on this issue.
Click to expand...

I didn't respond to points made about the inherent injustice of the system. I responded to TF's blanket statements about what all white people are apparently like, and what all white people are apparently guilty for, except apparently for the Irish. My point is that it's wrong to make blanket statements about any race, ethnicity, culture, etc, which is apparently so radical that I was instantly branded a racist by Crezth.

Moreover, my views about race in America are anything but optimistic. The fact that race is still an issue or even an accepted concept in America suggests to me that the situation will be bad for another century or two, if not more. Which is one of dozens of reasons that I have little intention of staying in American society.

Crezth didn't make any principled stand; he's made exactly one post here, which insinuated that I think that black people are the problem. He immediately accused me of racism, saying
You might as well just say "black people are the problem" and drop the curtain there.
Click to expand...
 
<nvm>
 
Phrossack said:
You're still making sweeping statements about all members of a given "race" based on the actions of some. If I were to say, "Japanese people can be terrible, have a bad history, and are collectively terrible at dealing with that," I would become... unpopular. Sure, people who were considered Japanese did some pretty awful things, but I'm not going to hold every last Japanese person responsible for them, or make generalizations about them.
Click to expand...

We could look at every culture, every nation, every peoples and see in history so many bad things. The fact that only one group is being attacked for the bad thing done is just ignoring history.
 
Plotinus said:
Phrossack wasn't disputing that the system is inherently prejudiced against non-white people. He was saying that it's wrong to make blanket statements about white people. That's not the same thing. Because whilst those who operate the system may be overwhelmingly white, not all white people are responsible for it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but who's actually saying that? Closest we've got is Caketastydelish accusing Masada of thinking that way, which is really not the same thing at all.


Phrossack said:
I responded to TF's blanket statements about what all white people are apparently like, and what all white people are apparently guilty for, except apparently for the Irish. My point is that it's wrong to make blanket statements about any race, ethnicity, culture, etc, which is apparently so radical that I was instantly branded a racist by Crezth.
Click to expand...
What thread are you even reading? I explicitly state that I'm not ascribing any sort of guilty to white people on at an individual level, and you take that to mean that I am ascribing guilt to white people at an individual level? You may as well read "up" as "down"!

(And the bit about an Irish exemption was pretty clearly meant with tongue in cheek. I claim to derive my Irishness to Guinness and Dropkick Murphys, ferchrissake.)
 
So long as we're all clear the real victim is white people getting accused of racism.
 
Crezth said:
So long as we're all clear the real victim is white people getting accused of racism.
Click to expand...

That or the Real real real victims: rich people buying elections being accused of being rich people buying elections.


This thread sucks. Can we change the subject back to how much Harvard blows in certain departments? I of course would love to discuss how substandard its econ department is :D
 
Traitorfish said:
What thread are you even reading? I explicitly state that I'm not ascribing any sort of guilty to white people on at an individual level, and you take that to mean that I am ascribing guilt to white people at an individual level? You may as well read "up" as "down"!

(And the bit about an Irish exemption was pretty clearly meant with tongue in cheek. I claim to derive my Irishness to Guinness and Dropkick Murphys, ferchrissake.)
Click to expand...

Sorry about the Irish bit, but did you not say

Traitorfish said:
I dunno, white people can be pretty terrible. We've got a bad history, y'know? And, at least collectively, we're pretty bad at dealing with it.
Click to expand...

?

It seemed like a generalization about white people, and one which most people would hesitate to make about blacks or Asians or anyone else (and rightly so). Maybe it wasn't, and unlike Crezth I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and say that you didn't mean it that way instead of pouncing on you. I've just gotten tired of people thinking that white people are legitimate targets for sweeping statements. My stance is that there are no such legitimate targets for racial generalization, which is apparently a radical and unpopular belief, judging by the reactions of the clique here.

It's that cliqueishness that makes WH in particular, and CFC in general, a pretty unpleasant place at times. Now, you've been polite, and the others have generally been alright so far in this particular thread, but it's hard to ignore how Crezth makes literally no contributions to the thread except bitterly sarcastic insinuations while Masada just pats him and all the others on the back and says they're taking a "principled stand." Randomly accusing people of racism and acting so childishly isn't principled. It's not like the clique here is some noble band of white knights crusading against the evil forces of racism. I've seen this here before. The most prominent WHers are a pretty tight group, and whenever someone shows up who disagrees with them, they all gang up on them and congratulate each other.

When the accusation of racism gets thrown at people so quickly and lightly, it cheapens the meaning of the word, like how constant comparisons of everything to Nazis make the Nazis seem trivial and not that bad. Either that or the charge sticks and damages the reputation of the accused, regardless of whether or not it's actually true.

Now, despite what Crezth may say, I don't actually think that blanket statements about whites and false accusations of racism are nearly as bad as the treatment of minorities in America. But this doesn't mean it's immoral to point out when they happen. After all, American minorities have it better than, say, Hazaras or Burmese Muslims--most people do--but it would be an idiot who says that just because there's another group that has it worse, American minorities have no right to complain. Likewise, whites in America have it better than minorities, which is why I'm just making comments on a gaming forum instead of joining a protest or a political party. I'm not worked up enough about it to accuse anyone of racism or get nasty. And I only make these comments because hardly anyone else bothers to. If a lot of posters made similar comments, I probably wouldn't because there's generally no reason to dogpile. It just starts a culture of self-congratulatory cliqueishness, discourages people from disagreeing, and turns the forum into, for lack of a better word, a circlejerk.
 
Phrossack said:
It seemed like a generalization about white people, and one which most people would hesitate to make about blacks or Asians or anyone else (and rightly so). Maybe it wasn't, and unlike Crezth I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and say that you didn't mean it that way instead of pouncing on you. I've just gotten tired of people thinking that white people are legitimate targets for sweeping statements. My stance is that there are no such legitimate targets for racial generalization, which is apparently a radical and unpopular belief, judging by the reactions of the clique here.
Click to expand...
Well, this is where we return to the problem of equivalence. What is an unfair generalisation of one group is an accurate outline of the history of another. In this case, we can talk about "white people" as an oppressive force in these general terms because, historically, that is what it meant for people to be white. The historical content of whiteness is, bluntlly, crapping on people who aren't white. That doesn't imply personal blame. It isn't even to imply complicity; history has its John Browns as much as its Adolf Hitlers. It also doesn't imply exhaustive description, because nobody was ever just white, devoid of identity beyond their assertion of superiority. But it does mean that there's a history of Bad Things, possessed and shared by white people insofar as they are white people, and that history places on us a certain burden of self-criticism which I don't think can be expanded to other "races", who simply don't have that thread in their construction.
 
Hygro said:
Can we change the subject back to how much Harvard blows in certain departments? I of course would love to discuss how substandard its econ department is :D
Click to expand...

Harvard sucks, unless you want become the next Patrick Bateman.
 
It didn't take very much to get Phrossack on the soapbox to talk about how worthless I am, I'll say that much. Is it fair to make sweeping generalizations about Crezths? O, woe is me!

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling. This isn't a helpful contribution to the discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Ivy League schools, like any university, have a share of fairly egregious problems. In this case, it's Harvard employing an entire History Department.
 
Traitorfish said:
Well, this is where we return to the problem of equivalence. What is an unfair generalisation of one group is an accurate outline of the history of another. In this case, we can talk about "white people" as an oppressive force in these general terms because, historically, that is what it meant for people to be white. The historical content of whiteness is, bluntlly, crapping on people who aren't white. That doesn't imply personal blame. It isn't even to imply complicity; history has its John Browns as much as its Adolf Hitlers. It also doesn't imply exhaustive description, because nobody was ever just white, devoid of identity beyond their assertion of superiority. But it does mean that there's a history of Bad Things, possessed and shared by white people insofar as they are white people, and that history places on us a certain burden of self-criticism which I don't think can be expanded to other "races", who simply don't have that thread in their construction.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Prossack, since you are ignoring the rest of history of bad things done by non whites and just focusing on one group, whereas he is saying that no group should be generalised like you are doing and by focusing on just one group you are ignoring what the other groups have done that are bad as the one group you are focusing, but this is typical of the the left that they are trying to raise up white guilt so they don't have to worry about being so privileged as a result of living in countries that have higher standards of living than other groups in non western countries.
 
classical_hero said:
trying to raise up white guilt so they don't have to worry about being so privileged as a result of living in countries that have higher standards of living than other groups in non western countries.
Click to expand...

I thought white guilt was supposed to have the opposite effect.
 
taillesskangaru said:
I thought white guilt was supposed to have the opposite effect.
Click to expand...

Well, it often has: A tiny group of left-wingers (not even close to representing the majority of all left-wingers) once made a fuss about black pete because he supposedly glorified slavery. Guess what happened: Pro-Black Pete demonstrations got hijacked by Wilders supporters and racists suddenly felt strengthened because plenty of people supported Black Pete even though most people who supported the Black Pete tradition were far from being racists themselves.
 
Kaiserguard said:
Well, it often has: A tiny group of left-wingers (not even close to representing the majority of all left-wingers) once made a fuss about black pete because he supposedly glorified slavery. Guess what happened: Pro-Black Pete demonstrations got hijacked by Wilders supporters and racists suddenly felt strengthened because plenty of people supported Black Pete even though most people who supported the Black Pete tradition were far from being racists themselves.
Click to expand...
Black Pete is really, really goddam racist, though. It is literal, unambiguous blackface. So if you find yourself in a country where this is possible, if you find yourself in a country where racists can strengthen their position by staging open-air minstrel shows, if you find yourself in a country where this sentence makes any sense whatsoever, then, honestly? There's nothing let to do but enact the Ripley Doctrine.
 
Phrossack said:
I didn't respond to points made about the inherent injustice of the system. I responded to TF's blanket statements about what all white people are apparently like, and what all white people are apparently guilty for, except apparently for the Irish. My point is that it's wrong to make blanket statements about any race, ethnicity, culture, etc, which is apparently so radical that I was instantly branded a racist by Crezth.
Click to expand...

So why jump on me for making a joke? A joke which was actively parodying the sorts of knee-jerk, racially charged responses that white people have to all manner of issues that touch on people of color? Why don't you spend your time jumping on a potential US Presidents for blaming black disadvantage on the failures of "black culture" (sorry "inner city culture")? Or the trope about how black people in the US "just commit more crime" rather than the discriminatory policies and practices that make them into criminals? Or the literally thousands of other discriminatory, bigoted and racist tropes that underpin most US political discourse? Why indeed.

Let's also consider who was calling me out for this first. It was none other than caketastydelish who is on record admitting that he hates Muslims and Arabs and takes an inordinate pride in his "Aryan" heritage. Someone whose views it seems so well align with Quacker's own that he can comfort him by saying "Don't let the flamers get to you. You are excellent." This is the company you find yourself in. For shame.

Phrossack said:
It's that cliqueishness that makes WH in particular, and CFC in general, a pretty unpleasant place at times. Now, you've been polite, and the others have generally been alright so far in this particular thread, but it's hard to ignore how Crezth makes literally no contributions to the thread except bitterly sarcastic insinuations while Masada just pats him and all the others on the back and says they're taking a "principled stand." Randomly accusing people of racism and acting so childishly isn't principled. It's not like the clique here is some noble band of white knights crusading against the evil forces of racism. I've seen this here before. The most prominent WHers are a pretty tight group, and whenever someone shows up who disagrees with them, they all gang up on them and congratulate each other.
Click to expand...

"We" (whoever "we" is meant to be) are not just doing this because "we" hate you. "We" are doing this because you expressed odious views. Odious views I might add which you swiftly abandoned when pushed on them. For example, you opened with this:

Phrossack said:
Bigotry against blacks and Asians is widely and openly condemned in modern American society, at least.
Click to expand...

Seems rather simple, no? Bigotry is bad and is "openly condemned" in the US. When pressed on this absolutely farcical notion you changed tact, saying "well jeez actually it's just...

Phrossack said:
Racist jokes and stereotypes [that] are not considered socially acceptable anymore, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

See what happened? You went from bigotry being condemned to just racist jokes and stereotypes. But that's not all because lots of bigotry and racism apparently exists in your US...

Phrossack said:
Now, this does not mean that subtle or not-so-subtle, latent discrimination against minorities or women does not exist. It does, and that's wrong and should be combated. It is more difficult for minorities to get jobs, and they get stopped by police more often and face harsher treatment in the judicial system. My grandfather was stopped from time to time at airports for looking Arab (he was Arab), and my black older brother got pulled over by police fairly often. Blacks tend to get longer prison sentences for the same crimes, and police are more likely to suspect and abuse them. And these things are wrong, and should be stopped.
Click to expand...

Bigotry you claimed originally didn't exist. You'll also note that you've now admitted that you actually knows all about racism in the US. Your older brother (!) no less got pulled over by the cops "fairly often" for DWB. But that's not stereotyping. No sir that negro just had a headlight out/was driving too fast/smelled like marijuana/had a nice car/was black.

Phrossack said:
I didn't respond to points made about the inherent injustice of the system. I responded to TF's blanket statements about what all white people are apparently like, and what all white people are apparently guilty for, except apparently for the Irish. My point is that it's wrong to make blanket statements about any race, ethnicity, culture, etc, which is apparently so radical that I was instantly branded a racist by Crezth.
Click to expand...

"I didn't actually mean what I said I said, honest."

Phrossack said:
Moreover, my views about race in America are anything but optimistic. The fact that race is still an issue or even an accepted concept in America suggests to me that the situation will be bad for another century or two, if not more. Which is one of dozens of reasons that I have little intention of staying in American society.
Click to expand...

"My impossibly optimistic assessment that stereotyping and bigotry aren't acceptable in the US might have been true [?] in very small part in certain company but I still hate this place because stereotyping and bigotry are going to outlive me by a century or so minimun."

Phrossack said:
Crezth didn't make any principled stand; he's made exactly one post here, which insinuated that I think that black people are the problem. He immediately accused me of racism, saying
Click to expand...

Calling out bigoted views is the definition of a principled stand in this business. Now you aren't a racist, we've established that. But that doesn't mean you can't hold bigoted views. We all hold them. But yours are rather more damaging than mine. Mine include an active distrust of white policeman and (some) white authority figures in suits. Is it unfair? A little because I know its a stereotype. But it's a good rule of thumb because you only have to make a mistake once...

All I'm asking you to do is reflect on what your views are for a moment because your views seem to be somewhat closer to what you said towards the end of this exchange - views which are for the most part fine - rather than what you opened with. But you really need to think why the hell you felt the knee-jerk need to deny that bigotry and stereotyping aren't a thing in the US when you clearly know from personal experience that they are. You might also want to reflect on whether or not you ever want to happen to agree with Quackers on anything political ever again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom